|
Airservices Airspace Modernisation Proposal & Consultation
Two changes currently proposed are: 1) National Standardisation of Class A and E Airspace• Class A airspace will be applied from 24,500ft (FL245) to 60,000ft (FL600). • In medium and high density airspace, the Class C upper limit will change to FL245 and in low density, the lower limit will be raised to FL245 (from 18,500ft (FL180) • Class E will remain as is (in the Mildura, Tasmania and Dubbo corridors). • In low density continental areas, Class E airspace will be lowered to 12,500ft (FL125) (excluding control areas). • Class C airspace will be introduced underneath Class A airspace in medium and high density areas where Class A airspace has been raised. 2) Transfer of control responsibility of surveilled Class C airspace from Air Traffic Control Towers at five regional locations to an Enroute sector in either Melbourne or Brisbane Air Traffic Services Centres Airspace Modernisation Airservices http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...E-Airspace.pdf Feedback to airservices requested by 16 November... |
Modernisation? How’s about HBA, LST, MKY & ROK a class C tower with full radar? That might be an awesome start.... and towers stay open until the last RPT arrives. |
Originally Posted by Flava Saver
(Post 10299447)
Modernisation? How’s about HBA, LST, MKY & ROK a class C tower with full radar? That might be an awesome start.... and towers stay open until the last RPT arrives. |
Originally Posted by triadic
(Post 10299663)
And who pays for that? Does the traffic justify that level of service?
You have been around as long as I have, you must know, by now, that in Australian aviation, life is priceless, no expenditure, no matter how large, or regulation no matter how silly, or restriction no matter how useless, is unjustified, to address a risk, no matter how small that risk, indeed to even address a "perception of a risk", even when the proponent accepts that they cannot show that the perception of risk is anything more than the product their febrile imagination. And we can't just blame CASA or Airservices, given the "expressed views" of the ignoratie of the aviation community. As the now retired DFO of a big Australian airline once told me: "We have to be able to tell the passengers aviation is "ABSOLUTELY SAFE". An interesting concept --- or perhaps he even believed it. Tootle pip!! |
Leady, can't argue with you on that one, but the suggestion above by Flava,that I referred to obviously would come at a cost and any examination of the proposal would have to pass a cost - benefit analysis and well as a risk analysis before moving forward. It may well be that some proposals have a significant risk attached and the associated cost is therefore accepted, however there is a very well established process for such proposals/changes and at the end of the day 'somebody' has to front up with the $$'s If it is judged to be acceptable by the decision makers in conjunction with industry then under the present setup, we all pay our share, one way or the other. Something that GA struggles with.
cheers PS... I heard that LHR changed from a Class A to D airspace/tower as it gave them more flexibility.... why then should we then have Class C at those rural ports? https://www.nats.aero/environment/co...lassification/ |
And who pays for that? Does the traffic justify that level of service? |
triadic,
I guess everybody has long forgotten, but we actually once had a requirement for (effectively) cost/benefit justification of any aviation legislative proposal, in the legislation. This was in the mid-1990s. In the midst of some major legislative reform, the (by then CASA) Legal Branch quietly arranged for its repeal to be buried in a mass of other legislative change, buried in the consequential amendments that change always brings. Of course, it is very hard to spot something being erased, as opposed to something added, without positive reference, which was also carefully buried. Even a bloke hired to scrutinize all "new" legislation missed it, so well was the statutory notification buried. One of the many totally cynical acts I (and you) have witnessed over the years. Of course, the re-interpretation of S. 9A of the Act followed, falsely claiming (to this day) that CASA CANNOT take cost into account. Now we are told the GAAG (after almost 20 years) has agreement with the Department and the pollies to put us back to where we were all those years ago. I will believe the IRON RING will accept that when I see the legislative amendment "on the books". Tootle pip!! |
Given the data changes etc that are required for a May 2019 implementation, I would think that it is a given that these changes will occur and ‘consultation’ is just ticking the box. My query is what is the function of OAR? Surely CASA OAR should be constantly reviewing airspace for its suitability and determining when to instigate change. Seems as though the cart is leading the horse. |
Seems as though the cart is leading the horse.
|
Definition of 'Consultation' as described by Commissioner G Smith of the IRC in a previous FS decision
(Please excuse the large type - 'tis from a 'cut n paste'...Not intended to imply shouting.....) Consultation "In relation to the concept of consultation I wish to make it clear that this involves more than a mere exchange of information. For consultation to be effective the participants must be contributing to the decision-making process not only in appearance, but in fact". Commissioner Smith, Melbourne, 12 March, 1991 Definition of 'Consultation' Statement re: Civil Aviation Authority Award ODN C Cheers |
Gee, what was that in relation to??
Who was Chairman of the Board in 1991?? |
Tweet tweet: It's been put off until November 2019. ;)
If they can put it off until 2028 when I retire, I'll be very happy! :ok: |
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs
(Post 10305095)
Tweet tweet: It's been put off until November 2019. ;)
There would be a lot of Airservices internal changes required too, including systems, documentation and training. When Airservices let most of their "back room" people go a couple of years ago, it seems that a lot of knowledge and expertise about such things and other matters went out the door. |
And if widespread consultation hasn't yet been done with all the affected parties, CASA's OAR would likely have issues approving the airspace change. |
Originally Posted by Track Shortener
(Post 10433938)
Rumour has it this is exactly what's just happened to the initial Airspace Change Proposal. Watch this space!
|
At a recent RAPAC meeting an ASA rep provided a briefing on this program, which had about 5 or 6 stages. Consultation with industry did not appear on any of the slides and when asked we were advised it was in one of the later stages. One has to ask why it was not at stage one? By the time it was briefed, it was a done deal. Not really good enough.
|
I seem to recall that was the NASIG approach :)
|
Tranche 3 of AsA Airspace Modenisation Project released. Can’t post URL as forum won’t allow, but it’s on the AsA website under “projects” and then “airspace modernisation sub-menu” Class E over D at regionals in 2020. |
|
Airservices OneSKY & Airspace modernisation
"The (Airspace Modernisation) program is a key enabler for Airservices to deliver the benefits of the OneSKY Australia program "
"Over the coming years, advanced air traffic management technology will be introduced in stages to unlock more than a Billion dollars of economic benefits for Australia." Stage 1 of OneSKY delivered a digital voice communication capable of mass frequency consolidation, I'm guessing once you have standardised airspace, controller ratings are no longer geographically bound. Hopefully efficiencies harvested in controller:airspace and controller:aircraft ratio increases come back to the aviation industry and not completely go to Airservices' senior management bonuses or Airservices government dividend returns... |
What is the latest re industry consultation and proposed education re these proposed changes?
The proposed change of C over D to E over D will be interesting. I recall most if not all aeronautical studies involving C over D, the "why not E" aspect has been covered by words to the effect that if a higher level of service can be provided, then it should be. I also note in the recent Aeronautical Study of Launceston: At the time this review was being undertaken, Airservices Australia had proposed a trial of Class E airspace over Class D airspace volumes at Launceston and Hobart. There had been significant feedback from stakeholders to the OAR on this trial. This trial has been removed and replaced with the Airspace Modernisation project3. Under this project, there is no change to the airspace classification at Launceston. And in one for Tamworth: Class C airspace above Tamworth Class D airspace should be maintained unless a new aeronautical study using an airspace risk analysis methodology and cost benefit analysis can prove significant benefits for Class E airspace. |
At the time this review was being undertaken, Airservices Australia had proposed a trial of Class E airspace over Class D airspace volumes at Launceston and Hobart. There had been significant feedback from stakeholders to the OAR on this trial. This trial has been removed and replaced with the Airspace Modernisation project3. Under this project, there is no change to the airspace classification at Launceston. |
For any changes to be effective on 7 November 2019, the cut-off date is early June.
Which doesn't leave much time for consultation, particularly since most of the RAPACs have already had their first round of meetings now. |
I cannot believe that John Anderson's (how many transport minsters ago was that, 10?) Ministerial Directive to placate he who cannot be named, over 15 years ago, is still being trotted out to justify the refusal or windback of Class C above D. How about we move on, people!
"As an aside, folks, just to let you know that we will be descending into airspace where not only do VFR aeroplanes not advise us of their position, they probably cannot be seen by air traffic controllers either because there's no radar out here. My FO and I will do our darndest to spot them out the front windows because there is a law that says we must, but I can't promise anything, because, as you can imagine, it gets a bit busy up here as we approach terra-firma.". :ok: |
Originally Posted by buckshot1777
(Post 10464139)
I guess there will be an amendment to the current Tranche 3 document in due course to reflect this ....
The CASA O.A.R review of LT is dated Jan 2019, and the Tranche 3 AsA change proposal is April 2019, so amendment seems unlikely as the review findings were already known when Tranche 3 was released. |
Hey Cap'n,
Should 'that' be spelled 'terror-firmer'...?? Cheeerrrssss……. |
Originally Posted by 10JQKA
(Post 10464228)
The CASA O.A.R review of LT is dated Jan 2019, and the Tranche 3 AsA change proposal is April 2019, so amendment seems unlikely as the review findings were already known when Tranche 3 was released.
Re-classify Class C airspace to Class E airspace at nine regional aerodromes (Albury, Alice Springs, Coffs Harbour, Hamilton Island, Hobart, Launceston, Mackay, Rockhampton and Tamworth). Unless I'm missing something - |
|
Originally Posted by buckshot1777
(Post 10464276)
So if the review findings were already known i.e. there will be no change to the airspace at Launceston, why does the Tranche 3 document at point 1 say:
And make further reference to the same at Tranche 3.1? Unless I'm missing something - Yes that’s the point, we are all missing something here. And it’s not just LT, if you look at the completed CASA O.A.R Airspace reviews for the various locations they all have the same findings “status quo” is “fit-for-purpose”, so what could have changed that in April 2019 AsA proposes that everything is up for grabs ? |
[S]o what could have changed that in April 2019 AsA proposes that everything is up for grabs ? But we all know that politics would never intrude into such important ‘safety’ decisions. |
Dear Santa Claus/ Easter bunny/ Magic fairy or who ever is in charge of this stuff... :yuk:
Feel free to name the airspace whatever letter of the alphabet you want. Just make it manageable so we don't have to bust our backsides trying to keep the jet in CTA. Surely it can't be that hard. I can't think of any country in the world that has these issues. :ugh: Oh, while I'm asking for things that will never happen, a tower in Ballina. Preferably BEFORE the 200 dead bodies land on sovereign Gardens. |
Originally Posted by cLeArIcE
(Post 10464625)
Dear Santa Claus/ Easter bunny/ Magic fairy or who ever is in charge of this stuff... :yuk:
Feel free to name the airspace whatever letter of the alphabet you want. Just make it manageable so we don't have to bust our backsides trying to keep the jet in CTA. Surely it can't be that hard. I can't think of any country in the world that has these issues. :ugh: Oh, while I'm asking for things that will never happen, a tower in Ballina. Preferably BEFORE the 200 dead bodies land on sovereign Gardens. E is CTA. Tootle pip!! |
Originally Posted by OZBUSDRIVER
(Post 10464343)
Flight Chops Oakland Airspace, talking to NorCal, VFR flight following in Class E. Watch from 5:00 mark. Interesting situation. Imagine here, "appropriate" frequency and not talking to anyone. What happens next?
So life isn't all beer and skittles with Class E airspace over there. |
So life isn't all beer and skittles with Class E airspace over there. Someone mentioned the possibility of 200 dead bodies in Sovereign Gardens at Ballina ... |
Originally Posted by Led Balon
It ain’t all beer and skittles for RPT in ForG over here, either.
Someone mentioned the possibility of 200 dead bodies in Sovereign Gardens at Ballina ... FOR A START, that bugsmasher and the jets would have been talking to each other. SECONDLY, some of us have said over and over again... if Ballina is that bad and yes, it does meet the CASA criteria for a tower, PUT ONE IN! PS: Where's the other leddie? Maybe he's updating his US safety stats... |
Pointing out patent illogicalities is not ‘bashing’. It’s pointing out patent illogicalities. The reason there’s not a tower at Ballina is money. Someone has decided that the cost of mitigating the risks to all those RPT passengers as a consequence of exposure to unsupervised LCDs in ForG, by putting in a tower and making the surrounding airspace D or C, isn’t worth it. I think the term to describe this concept is “affordable safety” ... |
Bloggsie,
Re. Ballina, I agree with you about a tower ---- if the establishment criteria has been reached, then a tower it should be ----- and it looks like it will be a "virtual" tower ---- which, no doubt, will be a great disappointment to ATCs who would love a job in a nice seaside rural setting, in a very pleasant country town, cheap houses etc., but still a short drive from the "bright lights". And it is true that, so far, it has been all about cost, with the airlines doing handstands to avoid same. Re. stats, nope, no need, which you would understand, if you had even an elementary understanding of mathematical statistics, and, for that matter, risk management. Tootle pip!! |
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs
(Post 10464220)
I cannot believe that John Anderson's (how many transport minsters ago was that, 10?) Ministerial Directive to placate he who cannot be named, over 15 years ago, is still being trotted out to justify the refusal or windback of Class C above D. How about we move on, people!
"As an aside, folks, just to let you know that we will be descending into airspace where not only do VFR aeroplanes not advise us of their position, they probably cannot be seen by air traffic controllers either because there's no radar out here. My FO and I will do our darndest to spot them out the front windows because there is a law that says we must, but I can't promise anything, because, as you can imagine, it gets a bit busy up here as we approach terra-firma.". :ok: Yep, and this will be the case (if it is approved) at destinations as busy as HB (where there is constant talk in the media about making it a major international destination), RK (where Alliance apparently have a deal with QLD Gov to set up a base), TW (where Qantas is planning on setting up a school I think I read somewhere), also LT,MK,AS,AY and who knows where else ? And to make it even more of a burden, the Approach service will not start until A045 down from the current Class C APP service provided through A085 ! So the guy or gal on Centre (BN or ML) will be trying to keep an eye on any VFR bogies (Class E airspace) that happen to materialise until A040 before the acft can be safely transferred to the appropriate TW/APP frequency, whilst at the same time sorting out multiple conflicts and carrying out active monitoring of the whole area of responsibility which can cover 100s of nm and dozens of airports in both controlled and uncontrolled airspace. Any VFR will be able to transit over any major regional TW/APP unit at or above A045 without any restrictions, and without any charges or flight plans or anything at all whatsoever, how is this an appropriate way to manage an airways system when fare paying passengers and nav charges paying rpt airlines are exposed to this level of disruption to safe operations ? Surely a typical VFR operation would rather skirt around the outside of the current Class D & C zone & steps into major regional airports than help themselves to free overflights and risk getting in the way of RPT ops ? In the current setup with the C airspace if u get a clearance u fill yr boots and if u don’t u go around, and everyone knows what you are doing from start to finish, anything wrong with that ? What is broken here that needs to be fixed ? Seriously who thinks this can work without major hiccups ? Why even try to do this ? |
Folks,
I simply cannot understand why bodies are nor regularly raining from the skies in US (and many other countries) given the extent of E airspace in said countries. In ICAO terms, that takes care of the risk analysis of the Airservices proposal. And speaking of ICAO, what is it about Australia that is so different, that such well established and proven CNS/ATM management procedures as promulgated by ICAO draw so much flack for self-confessed "professional" pilots in Australia. Tootle pip!! |
Leddee. You should also ask why on earth is radar required to provide a terminal C service.
that such well established and proven CNS/ATM management procedures as promulgated by ICAO draw so much flack for self-confessed "professional" pilots in Australia. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 18:26. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.